FDA Watching "Smart Choices" Front-Of-Package Nutrition Label Program For False Or Misleading Claims

The Food and Drug Administration issued a "Dear Manufacturer" letter regarding front-of-package symbols in response to recent industry efforts to create its own front-of-package marketing program.

In the letter, the FDA reminded food manufacturers and distributors that there is an existing regulatory scheme with specific requirements regarding nutrition claims.

Readers of this blog will recall that a little more than a month ago, several food companies agreed to use a front-of-pack nutrition labeling system called the Smart Choices Program on products beginning next year.

The FDA intimated its intent to monitor the Smart Choice Program and notify manufacturers when front-of-package symbols explicitly or impliedly violate legal requirements for nutrient content claims. Such use would render the labeling false or misleading.

The Smart Choices Program has received a lot of positive publicity, and there is a huge PR effort to make Smart Choices into a consumer standard for identifying good food choices.

I think the effort is misguided. It is “just-another” industry effort to self-regulate and to limit the actual dissemination of information on good versus bad food choices. From its outset, the program would have a funding stream conflict of interest, as its source of revenue to sustain itself would be conditioned on the participation of food manufacturers. That funding stream would likely dry up if standards were too rigorous, or if foods that failed to meet standards were required to state their shortcomings on their front package labels. Even in Keystone’s Request for Proposal seeking an administrator for the program, it repeatedly highlights the need to control costs to participants and to minimize the burdens on manufacturers in the provision of nutritional information.

Michael F. Jacobsen, executive director of nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest recently wrote: “A disinterested funder and committee of experts free of conflicts of interest likely would have rated the healthfulness of foods differently from the ‘better for you’ Smart Choices Program adopted by the roundtable.”

A system that is not mandatory for all foods and beverages is inherently flawed and is no different from current laws that permit manufacturers to make product claims related to good health. Smart Choices will be just another of the 25 icon systems currently in the US marketplace that permit manufacturers to puff up their food's desirability with health claims.

Also, unless there is a “Dumb Choice” standard, similar to the “Traffic Lights” program in the UK, the system is neither meaningful nor comprehensive. Self-regulation is preferred by industry as manufacturers would not be required to disclose which food products in their portfolios are “not” smart choices. The FDA mandated Nutrition Facts Panel currently in use requires uniform disclosure for all products, favorable or unfavorable.

Pending in the Senate (and likely to die there in the 110th Congress), and part of Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) HELP America Act (S.1342, Section 421, Front-Label Food Guidance Systems), is a mandate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to solicit public comments regarding whether American consumers would be better served by establishing a single, standardized, retail front-label food guidance system regulated by the FDA.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has also petitioned the FDA to develop a standardized system of symbols for front-label claims. The better route is establishment by the FDA of a directed, standardized, and comprehensive front-of-package food labeling program and icon system with unified criteria based on the best available science, and geared toward the public’s interest in health. It should apply to all foods and beverages, and not be compromised by dependence on industry funding or industry science.

Rapid Growth in Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops Continues, 92% of Planted Soybean Acres In US Are Genetically Engineered

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, U.S. farmers have rapidly taken to planting genetically engineered (GE) soybeans, cotton, and corn with herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance traits.

In the U.S., Herbicide Tolerant (HT) soybean adoption has expanded more rapidly and widely than other GE crops, reaching 92 percent of planted soybean acreage in 2008. The second most adopted variety, HT cotton, was planted on 68 percent of cotton acreage. The level of HT corn adoption, has recently accelerated, reaching 63 percent of U.S. corn acreage.

Insect-resistant (Bt) crops contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that produces a protein toxic to specific insects. Bt cotton was planted on 63 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 2008. Bt corn was planted on 57 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2008.

The rapid increase in the adoption of crop varieties with more than one GE trait (stacked traits) continues. Corn varieties with both Bt and HT traits account for 40 percent of planted acres in 2008, while cotton varieties with stacked traits account for 45 percent of cotton-planted acres.

In addition to corn, soybeans, and cotton, U.S. farmers have adopted HT canola and virus-resistant papaya and squash. Other GE crops are in various stages of development. As of May 2008, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had approved 1,311 field-testing applications for crops with resistance to virus, 842 for resistance to fungi, 2,200 for improved agronomic properties (such as resistance to cold, drought, and salinity), and 3,362 for higher product quality (including crops with increased protein and/or oil content, and crops with added vitamins and iron).

Worldwide, more than 280 million acres of GE crops with HT and/or Bt traits were planted in 23 countries in 2007, with the U.S. accounting for about 50 percent. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, China, Paraguay, and South Africa accounted for about 49 percent.

Despite the rapid expansion of GE crops, there is still no requirement that products made from GE crops be labeled as such. Given the prevalence of GE planted acres, the American consumer can more or less assume products bought commercially will contain GE crops or ingredients derived from GE crops.

Some Perspective on Burger King's Announcement to Reduce Sodium In Kids Meals

Burger King Corp. announced it is limiting sodium in all of its Kids Meals advertised to children under 12. The effort limits sodium to 600 mg or less and is a part of the BK Positive Steps initiative. It has not actually done it yet, but has annonced its intentions. Let’s give that some perspective.

First, according to the American Heart Institute, healthy adults should limit sodium intake to 2,300mg per day. The UK Recommended Nutritional Intake for adults is less than 1600mg per day. The National Academy of Sciences says a healthy adult should have between 1500 and 2400mg per day. The Canadian government recommends that 4-8 year olds get no more than 1200mg per day, and that nine year olds plus get no more than 1500mg per day. Part of the proposed Smart Choices nutritional guidelines recommends limits of 480mg of sodium per serving, but makes an exception for main dishes and permits up to 600mg (again, for adults).

One teaspoon of salt has 2,325mg of sodium.

The chain's current kids meal, which features Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, apple slices cut to look like french fries with low-fat caramel dipping sauce and Hershey's low-fat milk, has 340 calories and 505 milligrams of sodium . The company said other kids meals meeting its nutrition guidelines are in development and will be launched by this summer.

Taking a look at the current state of some of those other offerings reveals the following: The 4 piece Chicken Tenders Kids Meal has 480mg of sodium and the 6 piece Big Kids Chicken Tenders Meal has 720mg of sodium. Add an ounce of BBQ dipping sauce and you add 310mg of sodium. Try an ounce of the Buffalo dipping sauce and you add 350mg of sodium.

Whopper Juniors have 570mg of sodium and if you add cheese, the Whooper Junior has 780mg of sodium. Throw on a some bacon and you add 50mg per strip. This is all before the soda and dessert.

I applaud any effort to be more nutritionally responsible, but nobody should be fooled by PR efforts into thinking that feeding your kids at Burger King is a healthy nutritional decision, particularly for those who have to watch their sodium intake. Full calorie, sodium and other nutritional information for Burger King's offerings is available on Burger King's web site.

Westchester County Passes Menu Board Calorie Disclosure Law

After a year of deliberations between legislators and public health officials, and over the objections of restaurant owners and associations, Westchester County, NY passed a bill requiring chain restaurants and fast food outlets to post calories on their menu boards and menus. Restaurants with 15 or more locations globally (regardless of ownership) will have to comply with the law after a six-month grace period. After that, the County will impose fines for non-compliance. The bill passed 15-1.

Westchester joins NYC, CA, Portland, Seattle and Philadelphia in passing menu boad disclosure laws. Proposals are still pending in DC and Nashville, and new proposals are just being introduced in Rockland County, NY.

This issue is being closely monitored by this blog and others as pending federal legislation, if passed, would make state and local menu board disclosure laws null and void. The LEAN Act, favored by industry both would preempt state and local laws and permit chain restaurants and fast food outlets to post calorie counts in places other than on menus and menu boards. The LEAN Act would allow restaurants to post calorie counts on menu supplements, or on signs other than the actual menu board. This industry-drafted legislation is opposed by most consumer advocacy groups.

The MEAL Act, also pending in Congress would be more akin to NYC's menu board law and require restaurants to post calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It also would preserve local laws that are broader than the federal law.

Country of Origin Labeling For Dairy Products Needed to Protect Consumers From Melamine Taint (S.3653), Melamine Taint May Go Beyond Dairy Products

Partly in response to growing concerns about the potential for melamine contamination of milk products and milk-derived ingredients imported from China, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) introduced legislation in the Senate aimed at extending country-of-origin labeling requirements to dairy products.

The Dairy COOL (country-of-origin labeling) Act of 2008, S.3653, extends the country-of-origin labeling requirements (as contained in the 2008 farm act) beyond meats, produce and nuts to include dairy products.

Dairy COOL would require retailers of a product derived wholly or partly from milk or milk-derived ingredients designate where the covered dairy commodity or commodities were produced, originated or sourced, and each country in which the covered commodity was processed. The bill won support from some producer and consumer groups, and industry groups are “reviewing” the proposed legislation (most likely looking at the financial impact on its members, rather than the food safety considerations).

Milk and milk products that may originate from China included condensed, dried and non-fat milk, condensed and dried whey, lactose powder, permeate powder, demineralized and partially demineralized whey powders, caseins, yogurt, ice cream, cheese, whey protein concentrate and milk protein concentrate.

Manufacturers also need to be alert to the possibility that non-milk-derived ingredients from China that are or may be sold on the basis of protein content, such as soy protein, also could be contaminated with melamine, according to the F.D.A.

Restaurants Oppose What Will Likely Be The Nation's Toughest Calorie Disclosure Law

At last night's public meeting, restaurant representatives vocally opposed Nashville’s proposed calorie count disclosure law. Restaurant owners and trade associations have mastered all the talking points of the National Restaurant Association, and whined the following: (1) “They want to post calories, just not on the actual menu board or menu.” (2) “The measure will put restaurants out of business, or deter restaurants from opening in Nashville.” (3) “The costs are more than restaurants can manage in these hard economic times.” and, (4) Restaurants will close and jobs will be lost.”

The proposal is the toughest in the nation, and it would likely apply not just to the 500 or so fast food and chain restaurants in Davidson County, but also to Nashville’s public schools, its chain movie theaters, and supermarkets that serve prepared foods on site. The proposal is written very broadly and defers to state definitions for its applicability to "covered food service establishments."

Restaurant owners and trade associations are hoping for passage of the LEAN Act, pending federal legislation that would preempt all state and local menu board disclosure laws, and enable restaurants to post calorie information in menu supplements or on other signs. Also pending is the federal MEAL Act which mirrors NYC's menu law and would preserve similar and more restrictive local and state laws.

Board members voted to extend the deadline to Dec. 6 for public comment. The board will vote on the measure at its February meeting.

Smart Choices Front-of-Package Food Label Program Is Bad Policy, Burdened by Industry Conflicts

Smart Choices? Bad Policy.

The Smart Choices Front-of-Package food label program was recently launched at the American Dietetic Association’s annual Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo. It is the brainchild of the not-for-profit (and tax-exempt) Keystone Center Food and Nutrition Roundtable. Keystone has organized industry titans, including Kraft, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg, Unilever and many others and created its “BIG GREEN CHECKMARK” for eligible foods. The logo will depict calorie counts and number of servings per package, and a product can display the seal if it meets standards set by the Roundtable. Participation is fee-based and optional.

The program has received a lot of positive publicity, and there is a huge PR effort to make Smart Choices into a consumer standard for identifying good food choices.

I think the effort is misguided. It is “just-another” industry effort to self-regulate and to limit the actual dissemination of information on good versus bad food choices. From its outset, the program would have a funding stream conflict of interest, as its source of revenue to sustain itself would be conditioned on the participation of food manufacturers. That funding stream would likely dry up if standards were too rigorous, or if foods that failed to meet standards were required to state their shortcomings on their front package labels. Even in Keystone’s Request for Proposal seeking an administrator for the program, it repeatedly highlights the need to control costs to participants and to minimize the burdens on manufacturers in the provision of nutritional information.

Michael F. Jacobsen, executive director of nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest recently wrote: “A disinterested funder and committee of experts free of conflicts of interest likely would have rated the healthfulness of foods differently from the ‘better for you’ Smart Choices Program adopted by the roundtable.”

A system that is not mandatory for all foods and beverages is inherently flawed and is no different from current laws that permit manufacturers to make product claims related to good health. Smart Choices will be just another of the 25 icon systems currently in the US marketplace that permit manufacturers to puff up their food's desirability with health claims.
Also, unless there is a “Dumb Choice” standard, similar to the “Traffic Lights” program in the UK, the system is neither meaningful nor comprehensive. Self-regulation is preferred by industry as manufacturers would not be required to disclose which food products in their portfolios are “not” smart choices. The FDA mandated Nutrition Facts Panel currently in use requires uniform disclosure for all products, favorable or unfavorable.

Pending in the Senate, and part of Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) HELP America Act (S.1342, Section 421, Front-Label Food Guidance Systems), is a mandate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to solicit public comments regarding whether American consumers would be better served by establishing a single, standardized, retail front-label food guidance system regulated by the FDA.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has also petitioned the FDA to develop a standardized system of symbols for front-label claims.

The better route is establishment by the FDA of a directed, standardized, and comprehensive front-of-package food labeling program and icon system with unified criteria based on the best available science, and geared toward the public’s interest in health. It should apply to all foods and beverages, and not be compromised by dependence on industry funding or industry science.

Nashville Revises its Proposed Menu Board Law, Rockland County's Law Similar to NYC's Menu Board Law

In Nashville, where over half of adults are overwieght or obese, the health department has revised its original proposal from its first information session. While restaurants would still be required to print the calorie counts of menu items—health department officials made the following modifications to the proposed rules:

1. Restaurants with 15 or more stores must print calorie counts on their menus. This number was raised from 10 in the earlier draft.

2. Regulations would extend to retail grocery establishments with in-house dining, such as Whole Foods.

3. Restaurants would have until the end of 2009 to comply with the regulations.

4. The following language was added in an attempt to allay fears of potential lawsuits: “This regulation is not intended to provide or be used to support a private cause of action by any individual, other than an individual, entity, or agency authorized to enforce this regulation, against a covered food service establishment for compliance or non-compliance with this regulation. This regulation does not prohibit a covered food service establishment from including a statement on a menu or menu board that there may be variations in calorie content values across actual servings based on slight variations in serving size, quantity of ingredients, or special ordering."

The Metro Board of Health will consider the regulations, which are intended to help fight the rising trend of obesity, at the Dec. 4 meeting. Written comments will be accepted until Nov. 13.

At issue is still whether Nashville's law would apply to public schools. If so, it would be the toughest law in the country. Also, Nashville's legal disclaimer may be a mechanism to smooth approval by industry groups (though industry opposes any requirement that calorie counts be posted on menu boards, and prefers the option to hide information in menu supplements or other signage). Read more about Nashville.

The Journal-News reports today (on its front page - Rockland Edition) that Rockland is entering the national dialog about posting calories on fast food restaurant menu boards and chain restaurant menus. A new local law would mandate calorie disclosures a la NYC. Voices from business weigh in on the financial burdens and the so-called "nanny state" -- these are industry's talking points. There is no schedule set yet for public comment.

Recognizing that one in four British adults is overweight or obeste, the Minister of Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency has called for calorie content on all chain restaurant menus. Read more.

It is time in America for consumer protection laws to be written by consumer protection groups, not by the industries that cause the problems in the first place. Foxes should not guard henhouses. Those following my earlier posts know that an industry coalition has been formed to pass the LEAN Act, a federal statute that would trump all state and local laws and permit fast food joints and chain restaurants to hide calorie information in menu supplements or on signage near menu boards.

Consumer protection friendly legislation called the MEAL Act is also pending in Congress that would permit state and local laws to retain their status, and that would mandate that calorie information appear where consumers are most likely to see it - on the menu board by the prices, and on menus by the item description and price.

Until federal laws are passed, support state and local initiatives require calories be posted where they will be seen. Stand up to local, state and national industry associations and lobbies, and tell your Congressman or Senator that you support the MEAL Act. Ask them to co-sponsor the law and reject industry efforts to water it down.

Speak truth to power!

Beware Industry Coalition (CRNI) Claiming to Support Nutrition Information On Menu Boards

A new coalition of state restaurant associations, state retail associations, chain restaurants and industry groups have formed to support the LEAN Act, legislation introduced by Senator Tom Carper, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Congressman Jim Matheson. The legislation will permit fast food and chain restaurants to provide calorie and nutritional information in places other than on the menu board or the menu. It permits the use of menu supplements or sign on walls. The legislation also preempts more stringent state and local laws that mandate calorie counts be next to prices and food descriptions on menu boards. If passed, New York's successful menu board law would become void. So would California's. The watered-down federal standard offered by industry would prevail.

The Coalition for Responsible Nutrition Information’s (CRNI) web site is (www.nationalnutritionstandards.com).

Coalition members include Auntie Anne's Pretzels, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Brinker International, Burger King, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, Darden Restaurants, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin' Brands, Grocery Manufacturers Association, International Dairy Queen, International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, McDonald's, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Fisheries Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Foundation, OSI Restaurants LLC., Sonic, and White Castle.

Some coalition members have donated substantial sums to the legislation’s sponsors.

CRNI’s press releases have been pciked up by Meat & Poultry News, Food Product Design, Drinks Media Wire, Food Equipment News, Fresh Talk, Pizza Marketplace, Nation’s Restaurant Association, Let’s Talk Franchising, and Chain Leader magazine.

It seems the coalition’s unstated goal is to prevent a mandate requiring calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It never mentions the MEAL Act ( a competing proposal supported by actual health organizations that would specifically require calories on menus and menu boards and that would permit enforcement of more stringent state and local laws.) The coalition wants to prevent state and local jurisdictions from mandating that calories be disclosed where people will actually read them.

Mandatory menu board disclosure as proposed in the MEAL Act is supported by Public Citizen, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Preventitive Medicine, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the Trust for America’s Health and many, many others.

The CRNI lacks a single member without a financial interest in its advocacy.

Industry Groups Support Watered Down Menu Disclosure Law (and its sponsors)

The National Restaurant Association, the International Franchise Association, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants, along with other state and local industry associations have fallen in line behind the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act (the LEAN Act, S.3575), and its sister resolution in the House (H.R. 7187). These groups support the LEAN Acts because under the Acts, calorie and nutrition information need not actually be disclosed at the point of purchase, on menus or on menu boards. Instead, the Act permits disclosure on menu inserts, appendixes or supplements, or on signs near the menu board, or near where patrons wait on line for service. There is no mandate to post information near the prices, where consumers might actually see it.

Also, the LEAN Act would preempt state and local laws that impose different and stricter standards the LEAN Act, effectively nullifying laws like those passed in New York City and California.

These groups likely oppose the MEAL Act (S.2784) also pending in the Senate. The MEAL Act, is similar to the law passed in New York City that mandates disclosure directly on menu boards and menus where consumers are most likely to access the information. In a recent lobbying filing, the National Restaurant Association listed “Mandatory Menu Labeling” and the “MEAL Act” as targets of its lobbying efforts.

The National Restaurant Association represents 52,000 member companies that own more than 254,000 restaurants. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it has overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates since 1990, giving more than $8,000,000 to federal candidates for office – and 86% of its recipients were Republicans.

The co-sponsor of the LEAN Act, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with her 2004 Senatorial Election Campaign. According to government records, Murkowski has also received $7,000 from the International Franchise Association, and $1,000 from the National Retail Federation (a division of which is the National Council of Chain Restaurants).

The sponsor of the LEAN Act’s sister Resolution in the House, HR 7187, is Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT). Matheson received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with his 2006 House Election Campaign. According to government records, Matheson has also received $3,000 from the International Franchise Association and $2,000 from the National Retail Federation.

The other Senate sponsor of the LEAN Act, Tom Carper (D-DE) received $2,540 from the National Retail Federation between 2002 and 2006.

The MEAL Act sponsor is Tom Harkin (D-IA) and its co-sponsors are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The MEAL Act's House version, HR.3895 was sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and has 14 co-sponsors.

Summary of Polls on Fast-Food Menu Disclosure Requirements & Passed, Pending and Defeated Legislation

Here is a summary of polls on nutrition labeling in fast-food and chain restaurants.

In a Caravan Opinion Research Corporation 2008 poll of 1,003 adults, 78% of respondents agreed that “fast-food and other chain restaurants should list nutritional information, such as calories, fat, sugar or salt content on menus and menu boards.”

In an ARAMARK Corporation 2005 poll of 5,297 adults, 83% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should make nutrition information available for all menu items.”

In a Technomic Inc. 2007 poll of 2,500 respondents, 74% of respondents agreed that “menu boards should list nutrition information for all items served.”

In a Global Strategy Group, 2003 poll, 67% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should be required to provide nutrition information, including calories, on menus.

In an End Hunger Connecticut 2007 state-wide poll of 501 respondents, 82% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to display calorie content on menus or menu boards” and 84% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus.”

It seems that when the mandate is worded more strongly or more specifically, there is a slight erosion of support. Compare the results in polls that simply say the chains “should list information” with the poll that says they “should be required to list.” Of course that same discrepancy could be explained by the age of the poll. The more recent polls show stronger support for disclosure requirements. Regardless, support is overwhelmingly in favor of menu disclosure.

California, New York City, King County (Seattle) Washington, and Portland, Oregon have all passed menu labeling laws. The Portland law passed in July of 2008 and public hearing are being held on November 6th and 20th regarding implementation of the law.

Similar laws are pending in HI, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, VT, IA, KY, TN and the District of Columbia. Westchester County, NY is voting on the issue in the next few weeks. Nashville, TN has a public hearing set for November 6th.

Two statewide initiatives in Washington and Indiana have been defeated.

On the national stage, competing versions of menu labeling laws are pending in Congress – The MEAL Act vs. the LEAN Act. See my earlier posting here:. The MEAL Act is similar to New York City’s court-tested law. The LEAN Act is favored by the National Restaurant Association and other industry groups. It has less stringent standards that permit calorie and nutritional information to be posted in less conspicuous places or in menu addenda, and a provision for federal preemption of state and local menu disclosure laws. Federal preemption could render all local and state laws unenforceable.

In unrelated news, the USDA FSIS posted Sensenig Meats, 6999 Cannery Road, Hanover, PA and Steely Meats, 54 Mt. Pleasant Road, Fayetteville, PA as possible recipients of recalled 60-pound bulk boxes of "BM-95 Boneless Beef."

Battlelines are Being Drawn in Fast Food Menu Board Disclosure Legislation

Battlelines are being drawn on the fast food menu board laws. Attempts by industry to federalize disclosure laws are intended to weaken those laws and permit calorie/nutrition information to be hidden away from consumer access, in places like in menu inserts and separate handouts.

Nashville could be the first city in the South to require restaurants to post calories on menus. A public hearing is set for November 6th. If adopted, the calorie count requirement would begin Janunary 31, 2009 with a 90-day grace period. The proposed regulations would apply only to restaurants with 10 or more outlets nationwide. Calories would be posted on the menu or on a menu board, in the same size type as the price. The law would also extend to food tags, such as the calories in a tablespoon of ranch dressing on a salad bar.

The California Center for Public Health Advocacy has put this video up on Youtube showing what happens when customers need to consult a brochure.



We are following this story closely and will keep posting information as it becomes available. See our prior post.

Consumer Label Use Down According to USDA Economic Research Service

I've just finished reading the USDA Economic Research Service's recent report titled: The Decline In Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995-2006. The report is dated August 11, 2008.

This report examines changes in consumers' use of nutrition labels on food packages between 1995-96 and 2005-06. The analysis finds that, although a majority of consumers report using nutrition labels when buying food, use has declined for most label components, including the Nutrition Facts panel and information about calories, fats, cholesterol, and sodium. By contrast, use of fiber information has increased. The decline in label use is particularly marked for the cohort of adults less than 30 years old.

I find the conclusions of the report difficult to believe, and intuitively believe this issue should be studied with a larger sample and conducted by an independent organization.

Westchester County To Vote on Menu Board Bill

Westchester County, NY is poised to vote on passage of a calorie/nutrition disclosure bill that would require chain restaurants to post calories counts on menu boards. This bill is similar to laws in New York City and California. The New York Restaurant Association unsuccessfully challenged the New York City law in court last year.

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) favors a federalized approach to menu disclosure laws. A federal statute would likely preempt tougher local and state menu laws. The bill favored by the NRA (called the LEAN Act) would permit fast food restaurants and sit down chains to put calorie and nutritional information in menu supplements or inserts, or on signs separate from the menu board.

A better bill pending in the Senate (called the MEAL Act) would make the New York City disclosure law the national standard. This battle is being fought out all over the country. Now is the time to weigh in for tougher standards.

Comparison of Fast Food Labeling Bills - MEAL Act preferred to LEAN Act

Senators Carper and Murkowski recently introduced S.3575 to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The bill, cleverly called the LEAN Act (Labeling Education and Nutrition Act) purports to create a federal mandate of calorie and nutrition labeling for fast food outlets, but permits fast food and other chains to put that information somewhere other than the menu boards. In other words, it enables the chains to provide the information in a place other than where consumers would likely see it. Another goal of the legislation is to preempt state and local legislation like those in New York City and in California that mandate a stricter standard of disclosure.

An earlier bill, introduced by Senator Harkin (S.2784) called the Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL Act) would essentially require both fast food and table service restaurants to make disclosures similar to those of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Fast food restaurants would have to make the disclosures on menu boards and table service restaurants on printed menus. The law would be similar to those in New York City and California.

The National Restaurant Association (read its talking points) favors the LEAN act because it imposes a unified federal standard. The LEAN act would permit fast food and other restaurants to hide calorie and nutritional information in places other than where consumers look to make choices, such as in signs near the menu board, in handouts or menu inserts, and elsewhere such as an appendix attached to the back of the menu, or in another menu that supplements the regular menu.

Harkin's MEAL Act is the better bill. It is more direct and more likely to accomplish its goals of disseminating meaningful calorie and nutrition information to consumers. The LEAN act is intended to protect restaurant owners, not consumers.

New Food Labeling Laws Exempt Stores Selling Less Than $230,000 of Fresh & Frozen Fruits & Vegetables

The new labeling laws take effect on March 30, 2009. Retailers are required to label country of origin for foods including fruits, vegetables, meats, and nuts.

Any store that sells less than $230,000 worth of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables that would otherwise be subject to the new label laws are not required to label imports. Think about this practically -- it basically excludes most butcher shops and fish shops, local fruitsellers and small grocery stores.

Enforcement is done by the Department of Agriculture which has only allocated $1 million dollars for enforcement of country-of-origin rules nationwide. Stay tuned . . .